Liability Section. Winter 2011

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Liability Section. Winter 2011"

Transcription

1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Liability Section Winter 2011 MAIN OFFICE: First Central Tower 360 Central Avenue, 11th Floor St. Petersburg, FL P: F: FLORIDA SUPER LAWYERS We congratulate these attorneys who have been named Florida Super Lawyers. These lawyers were selected through an extensive process of balloting, blue ribbon panel review and independent research. Only 5% of Florida lawyers have received this distinction. TAMPA OFFICE: 5001 West Cypress Street Tampa, FL P: David J. Abbey Jeffrey M. Adams Robert P. Byelick John D. Kiernan C. Bryant Boydstun IN THIS ISSUE: Firm News Auto Insurance Section Developments in Personal Injury Defense... 6 Offers of Judgment Developing Story: Physician Fraud The Final Word (For Now) on Provider Write-Downs Business Law Corner...10 What s New in Employment Law...11 Did You Know: Your Non-Binding Arbitration May Become Binding...11

2 FIRM NEWS Robert P. Byelick has been selected as Chairman of the volunteer Baseball Group Clutch Hitters of Tampa Bay. The 80-member group of business leaders supports the Tampa Bay Rays efforts to remain in the area. He was recently quoted in a related Tampa Bay Business Journal article: We consider helping the Rays to be business retention, the same as with other business. Allison G. Mawhinney attended the Defense Research Institute s 2011 Appellate Advocacy conference held at the J.W. Marriott in Orlando. This Firm represents civil litigants, employers and carriers in a broad array of appellate matters including medical malpractice, auto negligence, premises liability, and workers compensation appeals. Alexis Upton joined the firm in June 2011 and practices in various areas of civil defense litigation. Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Upton served as an Assistant State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida for approximately 4 years. Alexis tried over 35 jury trials over the course of her employment at the State Attorney s Office. Michael Auchampau joined Abbey Adams in February Michael has handled the defense of workers compensation cases throughout the State of Florida and represents employers and insurance carriers in employment law-related matters. FIRM NEWS Bob Byelick is the Chairman of the Fischer-Carr Scholarship Committee of the Kiwanis Club of St. Petersburg. This year, the Committee raised over $50, at its Annual Birthday Bash which will provide thirteen 6th grade students from low income families with free college tuition upon successfully graduating from high school. This brings the total to 188 students since David Abbey also serves on this Committee. Jeff Adams was recently re-elected to the Board of Directors for the Florida Defense Lawyers Association (www.fdla. org). Jeff was a featured speaker at the 2011 Florida Liability Claims Conference held at Disney. David J. Abbey attended Bob Byelick and Jeff Adams attended the recent the Florida Trucking 2011 Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee Association Annual (FIFEC: Conference in Orlando. Membership Conference held July 28 31, 2011 at The Breakers in Palm Beach. This Firm represents motor carriers and their drivers in Abbey, Adams hosted its annual law firm Evening at the Ballpark this fall, and was recognized by the Tampa Bay Rays for its fan loyalty. We will be back next season to support the home team! tort litigation and motor carriers as employers in employment litigation and workers compensation claims. The Keynote Address was offered by Barbara Windsor, the ATA Chairman and President & CEO Hahn Transportation, Inc. ATA Chief Economist, Bob Costello provided an optimistic outlook Years of Service Abbey, Adams would like to recognize the following individuals for their many years of loyalty and service to the Firm. Congratulations and many thanks to Jessica Bergin for 21 years with the Firm and Ingrid From left to right: Pace Mawhinney, Allison Mawhinney, Michael Auchampau, Alexis Upton for the trucking industry in the coming years. FDOT Sayler and Nicki Wagner for 20 years with the Firm. Abbey, Adams sponsored the Community Law Program s Celebration of Equal Access and Volunteer Appreciation Secretary Arianth Prasad commented on the challenges Dinner on September 27, President-elect of the Florida Bar, Gwynne Young, gave the keynote address and 2 it faces developing and maintaining Florida s roads. 3 commended the local Bar on its service to the community.

3 AUTO INSURANCE SECTION AUTO INSURANCE SECTION: Family exclusion in auto policy deemed unambiguous: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 2011 WL (Fla. 2011). After a hiatus from addressing household exclusions in auto liability policies, the Florida Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed the exclusion is not ambiguous and will operate to bar coverage for liability claims by an insured or resident relative of an insured as that term is defined in the policy. This opinion arose from a motor vehicle accident in which a State Farm insured allowed a non-resident relative to drive her vehicle. The permissive driver was involved in an accident which caused injuries to the vehicle passengers. The injured passengers were nonresident relatives of the named insured and resident relatives of the permissive driver. The passengers brought a declaratory action seeking a determination the State Farm policy provided coverage for their claims against the named insured. The policy in question included a household exclusion barring coverage for liability claims brought by any insured, or any resident relative of an insured. Hence, State Farm argued the policy did not provide coverage for the passengers claims since the permissive driver qualified as an insured under the policy and the injured passengers were resident relatives of the driver. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the passengers. but held the exclusion was ambiguous as applied to the passengers. The Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Third DCA to the extent it found the household exclusion ambiguous and stated that the household exclusion provision in the policy issued to Mendez unambiguously applied to claims by members of the household of a permissive-driver insured. Id. at 1. Title is not dispositive of ownership: Mary Jo Bowen v. Mary Gregory Taylor-Christensen, et al., 2011 WL (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). The Fifth DCA recently reaffirmed the principle that beneficial interest, as opposed to title, is the bellwether of ownership. While changing a tire on the side of I-95, Mary Jo Bowen s husband was struck by a vehicle purportedly owned by Robert Christensen and operated by his ex-wife, Mary Gregory Taylor- Christensen. Ms. Bowen, as personal representative of her husband s estate, brought suit against Mr. Christensen as the co-owner of the vehicle that struck her husband. Ms. Bowen appealed the final judgment entered against her on her claim for Mr. Christensen s vicarious liability. had no beneficial ownership interest in the vehicle. The trial court agreed and entered final judgment accordingly. The Fifth DCA agreed with the reasoning of the trial court, finding title alone does not trigger liability. Rather, beneficial ownership of a vehicle is the key to vicarious liability. Whether a title-holder possesses mere naked title or is the beneficial owner of the vehicle hinges on whether the titleholder had control and authority over the use of the vehicle. If the evidence establishes the title-holder has beneficial use of the vehicle, then the trial court is authorized to rule as a matter of law, the titleholder is liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. In this case, Mr. Christensen made a gift to his wife and relinquished all access, use and control of the car immediately after purchase. Thus, the Fifth DCA affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the trial court properly declined to directed verdict as mere title was not enough to make Christensen liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Out-of-State Anti-Stacking Provision May Not Be Enforceable: to Florida, their daughter and one of their vehicles stayed in Delaware. Mr. Rando contacted GEICO and requested the family s policy be changed to reflect the fact that two cars would now be garaged in Florida, and the third, registered in Delaware, would remain in that State with its primary operator, Mr. Rando s daughter. GEICO therefore issued a new Delawarerated policy for the daughter s vehicle and amended the pre-existing policy to reflect Mr. and Mrs. Rando s change of residency. The Delaware policy identified Mr. Rando and his wife as the named insureds and their daughter as the primary operator. In addition, the Delaware policy expressly indicated the vehicle was principally garaged in Delaware. When Mr. Rando was involved in a serious accident in Florida, he sought coverage under both the Florida policy and Delaware policies. GEICO paid the stacked limits of the Florida policy but denied coverage under the Delaware policy citing its anti-stacking provision. The provision in question was authorized under Delaware law. The Randos filed suit against GEICO and the Middle District granted summary judgment to the insurer. The Randos appealed and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the above question to the Florida Supreme Court. AUTO INSURANCE SECTION Rando v. GEICO, 39 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 2010). Parents who purchase auto insurance for their outof-state children may be entitled to UM coverage not disputed policy, executed in Florida, albeit to insure The Florida Supreme Court determined that the Mr. Christensen and his ex-wife separated in Four years later, he bought his ex-wife a car which only under their own policies but under those of their a risk centered in Delaware, was required to comply she drove during the fatal accident. Mr. Christensen children. In Rando v. GEICO, 39 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 2010), with Florida law pursuant to Florida choice of law testified he intended the car to be a gift for his exwife and they both signed all paperwork relating to the Florida Supreme Court considered the following principles. Florida law required GEICO to obtain its question certified from the 11th Circuit Court of insureds informed consent under (9) Fla. the vehicle purchase. The title identified Mary Taylor- Appeals: Whether an auto policy which was executed, Stat., in order to prohibit stacking of multiple UM Christensen or Robert Christensen as the owners. Mr. issued and delivered in Florida for a car that is policies. Since GEICO failed to obtain such consent, Christensen drove the car once, the day after it was registered and garaged out-of-state to be principally the anti-stacking provision of the Delaware policy was purchased, and was never behind the wheel again. operated by an out-of-state resident may properly deemed invalid and unenforceable. In the ensuing two years, Mr. Christensen never had include an anti-stacking provision as permitted under On appeal to the Third DCA, the Court determined the access to the car, never had a key, never insured it, and the laws of that state. household exclusion clearly barred coverage for any never had it registered. Hence, Mr. Christensen denied 4 The Randos lived in Delaware where they initially claims that might be raised by the permissive driver any vicarious liability for the accident on the basis he 5 purchased a single GEICO policy. When they moved

4 DEVELOPMENTS IN PERSONAL INJURY DEFENSE This case demonstrates that even a policy rated for another state, covering an out-of-state vehicle and driver, may be subject to Florida law if it is executed in Florida. With policyholders routinely purchasing coverage for college-bound children or other outof-state family members, this case illustrates the importance of accounting for potential conflicts of law from the outset. DEVELOPMENTS IN PERSONAL INJURY DEFENSE The Second DCA disagreed and determined the medical billing expert s testimony would have assisted the jury in determining whether Mr. Bowling s medical bills, on which he based his claim for damages, accurately reflected the treatment he was documented to have received. This issue was directly relevant to whether Mr. Bowling s claimed medical expenses were reasonable and necessary. Id. at 2. discovery concerning a discectomy performed by Dr. Katzman following a auto accident. Dr. Katzman billed in excess of $45, for the procedure, which lasted less than 45 minutes. The defendants sought information regarding the amount Dr. Katzman collected from health insurance carriers for the three years prior to the accident, and what he collected under letters of protection for the same time period. her. Id. at 1. Mr. Gonzalez did not accept the offer. Following a favorable judgment, plaintiff sought and was awarded her attorney s fees based upon the offer of judgment. On appeal, the First DCA reversed the fee award. The Court determined the proposal for settlement was invalid since it would have been impossible for Mr. Gonzalez to meet the conditions of the offer which required him to compel GEICO to pay an excess settlement. Specifically the proposal required that GEICO, a non-party, tender a check well in excess of the policy limits of $25, even though there has been no determination that GEICO is liable to pay more than its policy limits. Id. Hence, the offer of judgment was deemed unenforceable and the related fee award was reversed. OFFERS OF JUDGMENT The Court found that Dr. Katzman was a hybrid Further, the Court found the expert was qualified to witness, not just a treating physician. As such, the render the disputed opinion in light of her specialized Court allowed the discovery to examine whether the Medical billing experts knowledge and training concerning medical bill coding and supporting medical record documentation. expert has recommended an allegedly unnecessary and costly procedure with greater frequency in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bowling, 2011 WL litigation cases, and whether the expert, as a treating (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). In reaching its decision, the Second DCA cited physician, allegedly overcharged for the medical constitutional concerns centered on a litigant s 14th services at issue in this lawsuit. Id. at 4. The Court Insureds facing personal injury claims received a Amendment due process rights, including the right allowed the limited intrusion into the financial affairs to call witnesses. A litigant s interest in that right is of the expert despite the wording of Fla. R. Civ. P. Joint Proposals favorable outcome in the case of State Farm Mut. Auto. particularly compelling when the witness sought Ins. Co. v. Bowling, 2011 WL (Fla. 2d DCA to be excluded is a party s only witness or one of Andrews v. Frey, 66 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). 2011). The defense bar has fought an uphill battle the party s most important witnesses because if the OFFERS concerning the admissibility of expert testimony witness is stricken, that party will be left unable to OF JUDGMENT Shannon Frey was the active tortfeasor in this to challenge a plaintiff s medical bills. The Bowling present evidence in support of his or her theory of the case stemming from a motor vehicle accident. Her Court considered precisely this issue and reversed case. Id. at 3., (citation omitted). Thus, the Second Proposals In Excess of Policy Limits father, Rudolphe Frey, was the vicariously liable codefendant. The Freys were sued by Kimberly Andrews a trial court s order precluding testimony from a DCA reversed the final judgment entered below and medical bill examiner. At trial, the defense sought remanded the matter for new trial. Gonzalez v. Claywell, 2011 WL (Fla. 1st DCA and her minor daughter, Kyla Andrews. Shannon Frey to introduce testimony from a billing expert that 2011). served essentially identical proposals for settlement plaintiff s medical bills included a variety of entries The split opinion was met with motions for rehearing, on each plaintiff and required the execution of a full for treatment not reflected in the records. The expert clarification and motions to file amicus curiae briefs The First DCA has determined a proposal for release as to both defendants. The Fifth DCA held that testified of $278,000 in medical bills $111,000 which have been granted. Hence, we have yet to settlement in excess of the offeree s policy limits is even though the proposals conditioned acceptance on was not supported by the medical records. Plaintiffs receive the final word on this opinion. Nonetheless, invalid. Roger Gonzalez and Dawn Claywell were releasing both the Freys, this did not create ambiguity sought to exclude the testimony arguing the expert the majority s leaning reflects a positive shift in the involved in a motor vehicle accident in which Ms. or transform them into joint offers. was unqualified to render an opinion as to the tide of expert testimony concerning medical bills. Claywell was injured. She sued Mr. Gonzalez who was reasonableness of the bills and that the testimony would not assist the jury. The trial court granted the motion determining the testimony of the witness will not assist the jury in determining whether Mr. Expert Discovery Katzman, et al., v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc., et al., 2011 insured under a GEICO policy providing $25, in bodily injury liability coverage. Ms. Claywell served upon Mr. Gonzalez a proposal for settlement by which she offered to settle her lawsuit for $240, if The Court explained both plaintiffs had independent control to settle, and neither had an independent claim against Rudolphe Frey to evaluate or settle. Id. at 379. The Court reached this conclusion because 6 Bowling s medical bills are reasonable; and that [the WL (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Gonzalez s insurance company, GEICO, tendered a the issues of negligence and vicarious liability were expert] was not qualified to render an opinion as to check in the amount of $240, made payable to not disputed, and there was no independent claim 7 the reasonableness of those bills. Id. at 1. Defendants in this personal injury action sought

5 OFFERS OF JUDGMENT DEVELOPING STORY - PHYSICIAN FRAUD for separate liability against Rudolphe Frey. The Fifth District ended the opinion by joining the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. SE Floating Docks, Inc., 632 Fed. 3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2011) in certifying this question to the Florida Supreme Court: whether the term joint proposal in Rule 1.442(c)(3) applies to cases in which acceptance of the offer is conditioned upon dismissal with prejudice of an offeree s claim against an offeror and a third party. Improper Closing Arguments City of Orlando v. Carmen Pineiro, as Personal Representative, etc., 66 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). In the course of an alleged high-speed pursuit involving the Orlando Police Department, the fleeing criminal collided with another motorist resulting in fatal injuries to the motorist. His estate settled a civil lawsuit against the fleeing motorist, and the case proceeded to trial against only the City of Orlando. The Fifth District Court of Appeal ordered a new trial finding that plaintiff s counsel s objected-to arguments during closing went too far. Plaintiff s counsel argued that unless the City was found responsible for the accident, the City would be laughing at their verdict. The Court also found improper a series of arguments concerning the value of the decedent plaintiff s life. The Fifth District held that the argument should have been limited to the elements of damages in a wrongful death trial. Plaintiff s counsel s argument which went way beyond those elements was held to have deprived the City of Orlando of a fair trial. Although not grounds for reversal, the Court also spent time discussing unobjected-to comments made by plaintiff s counsel in the trial. The Court criticized plaintiff s counsel s analogy involving a professional basketball player, accusing defense counsel of doing whatever it takes to win, and accusing the testifying officers of having no remorse or not apologizing, as all being improper. The Court also held that the evidence of the criminal defendant s guilty plea to the crime of DUI manslaughter and his conviction should have been admitted in the trial. One of the witnesses who testified for the plaintiff had been arrested by the Orlando Police Department on prior occasions. Those arrests did not result in a felony conviction for a crime of dishonesty. The Fifth District suggested those arrests were appropriate topics to expose the witness s bias against the Orlando Police Department. DEVELOPING STORY PHYSICIAN FRAUD State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Kugler, 2011 WL (S.D. Fla. 2011). State Farm has brought suit alleging twelve defendants conspired to defraud the insurer and other similar insurers by performing medically unnecessary diagnostic tests and surgical procedures on persons involved in automobile accidents. Id. The patients were referred to the medical providers by certain favored personal injury attorneys. Id. State Farm alleges the medical providers ordered medically unnecessary discograms and discectomies for which the insurer, in its capacity as PIP, UM or BI carrier, was fraudulently induced to pay in excess of $13,000, Percutaneous lumbar discectomies performed by the defendants were reported to comprise 30% of all such procedures performed at every ambulatory center in Florida from 2005 to Id. While the final resolution of this case remains to be determined, the defendants motion to dismiss based upon State Farm s purported failure to state claims under RICO, Florida s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and Florida common law fraud and unjust enrichment theories was denied in its entirety by a recent Order from the Southern District. THE FINAL WORD (FOR NOW) ON PROVIDER WRITE-DOWNS Over the course of the last decade, the defense bar has fought introduction of the full amount of medical bills incurred by personal injury plaintiffs. This is because medical bills are so often reduced by the medical provider him/herself by accepting an amount far below the amount of the bill in full satisfaction of the so-called debt. For example, in Cooperative Leasing, Inc. v. Johnson, 872 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), the Second DCA considered whether it was proper for a plaintiff to admit the full amount of medical bills into evidence even though providers accepted lesser amounts from Medicare in full payment of those bills. The Second DCA determined the trial court should have granted the appellant s motion in limine and prohibited Johnson from introducing the full amount of her medical bills into evidence. Id. at 959. The plaintiffs bar has attempted to limit the application of this case by pointing to the fact the adjustments at issue were based on Medicare reimbursement rates beyond which a provider may not seek recovery from the patient, or any other source. these set-offs where the alternative is a windfall to the injured party. In reaching this determination, the Goble Court commented provider write-offs qualify as collateral sources under , Fla. Stat. That determination and the procedural background of the case provided a basis for the plaintiffs bar to argue the set-off should be applied post-trial as opposed to being addressed via motion in limine as to the full amount of medical bills. In the following years, Florida trial courts struggled with the proper treatment of provider adjustments. In 2010, the First DCA in Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harrell, 53 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), provided its answer. The plaintiff prevailed on a claim against Nationwide as UM carrier. Nationwide appealed arguing the trial court erred in permitting plaintiff to introduce the full amount of medical bills when providers accepted lesser amounts from a private health insurance carrier in full satisfaction of the bills. The First DCA found the trial court correctly ruled that appellee was entitled to introduce into evidence (and to request from the jury) the gross amount of her medical bills, rather than the lesser amount paid by Appellee s private insurer in full settlement of the medical bills. Id. at More recently, the Fifth DCA reached a similar 8 The following year, the Supreme Court considered application of provider adjustments. In Goble v. Frohman, 901 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2005), the plaintiff introduced and was awarded the full amount of medical bills even though providers accepted less as full payment. After trial, the defendant was granted a set-off of the amounts that were written off by medical providers. The Second DCA, and later the Supreme Court, upheld the set-off on the basis medical expense awards should be reduced to the amount plaintiff is actually required to pay; and courts should permit conclusion in School Board of Sumter Co. v. Brown, 54 So. 3d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). By its per curiam affirmance, the Third DCA conclude[d], as did the trial judge, that the contractual discounts associated with the plaintiff/appellee s medical bills fall within the statutory definition of collateral sources Id. at 611. Similarly, in Durse v. Henn, 2011 WL (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), the Fourth DCA reversed a trial court s order precluding an uninsured plaintiff from introducing the full amount of his medical bills at trial where he personally negotiated and his providers 9 THE FINAL WORD

6 BUSINESS LAW CORNER accepted lesser amounts. Collectively, these cases illustrate Florida courts unwillingness to consider provider write-offs prior to trial or to limit a plaintiff to presenting only those medical bills for which he or she is actually liable. For this reason, it is important for practitioners to conclusively establish the amount of claimed medical expenses that have been written off in order to preserve his or her client s right to a post-trial set-off of those amounts. BUSINESS LAW CORNER BE CAREFUL WITH YOUR BANK DEPOSITS Many individuals and business people alike do not realize their potential liability to their bank for a dishonored deposit into an individual or business account. With the rise of internet scams and counterfeit checks, this has become an increasing problem for businesses of every type, including law firms and title companies, as well as individuals. Under the Federal Banking Rules, you as the depositor are responsible to the bank if a check that you deposit turns out to be bad. There have been many recent examples in which a business, including a law firm, received a check as payment of a bill or an amount collected for a third party to whom the funds will be ultimately transferred. The check appeared genuine, and in some cases was even a bank check, certified check or cashier s check. Upon receiving such a check, you may deposit it into your account. Once the appropriate time has passed, the funds are then disbursed either to the third party for whom you collected the payment, or perhaps to pay bills or payroll for your business. The deposit then turns out to be no good. Even if you had requested that the bank hold this money for a longer than normal time to be sure it cleared, the bank is not responsible. You are on the hook to the bank to replenish the account in the amount of the shortage caused by the bad deposit. As you can imagine, this can place your business or firm in an unexpectedly bad position. This is the reason many title companies now insist on money being wired into their accounts before disbursal rather than accepting checks in real estate closings. In fact, even title companies have been victims of scams in which they gave a check to the individuals who were supposed to receive the disbursement from a sale. Unbeknownst to the title company, the individuals holding the checks deposited the funds electronically by taking a snap-shot of the check with a smart phone and forwarding it to the bank. The bank receives the image, and processes the deposit. In this scam scenario, the next day, the individuals return the check to the title company saying they would rather have the money directly deposited into their account. Without realizing the individuals already electronically deposited the funds, the title company gives them a duplicate amount through a wire transfer and the title company is out the money. In the digital age more than ever, we must be vigilant of the risks involved in accepting money from those with whom we are not familiar, and have not done business on a regular basis. You should discuss with your banker what his or her policy is on these matters and what suggestions they have to help you protect yourself from these types of scams. WHAT S NEW IN EMPLOYMENT LAW? Misclassification of Independent Contractors in the Crosshairs The U.S. Department of Labor recently announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the IRS in which they will now actively share information about businesses that misclassify employees as independent contractors. You can expect to see an increase in enforcement efforts by these agencies. Wage and Hour Division App for Smart Phones Tracks Employee Hours The U.S. Department of Labor recently launched its first application for smart phones, a timesheet to help employees independently track the hours they work and determine the wages they are owed. It is available in English and Spanish and allows users to track regular work hours, break time and any overtime hours for one or more employers. This new technology can be used by employees when an employer has failed to maintain accurate records. The free app is currently compatible with the iphone and ipod Touch. For workers without a smart phone, the Wage and Hour Division has a printable work hours calendar in English and Spanish to track rate of pay, work start and stop times, and arrival and departure times. The calendar also includes information about workers rights and how to file a wage violation complaint. Facebook Firing A recent Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision concluded that a non-profit corporation unlawfully terminated employees for engaging in concerted, protected activity and ordered all five employees reinstated with back pay and interest. In Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. v. Ortiz, employees posted comments on Facebook about a co-worker in response to that co-worker s complaints about the general job performance of other employees. The co-worker complained to management that the employees comments constituted cyber-bullying. Management concluded that the comments violated the employer s harassment policy and terminated the employees. After a hearing, the ALJ determined that the Facebook discussion was concerted, protected activity under the NLRA since the discussion involved the terms and conditions of employment. The ALJ further found that the comments were not in violation of the employer s harassment policy. Although this decision is only the decision of a single ALJ and not a decision of the entire Board, it is important because the NLRA covers both union and non-union employers, and both for-profit and non-profit employers in some cases. All employers, whether union or not, must be careful in taking disciplinary action against employees based upon their comments in social media. DID YOU KNOW: Your Non-Binding Arbitration May Become Binding Florida Rule of Civil Procedure and Florida Statute set forth general guidelines for conducting a non-binding arbitration. Litigants beware when read together, these provisions provide your non-binding arbitration decision will become final if you fail to file a Motion for Trial within twenty (20) days of the date the arbitration decision is served upon you! WHAT S NEW IN EMPLOYMENT LAW? 10 11

7 ATTORNEYS AT LAW First Central Tower 360 Central Avenue, 11th FLoor St. Petersburg, FL PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID Permit 246 St. Petersburg, FL 337 Continuing Education Seminars: The Firm regularly provides seminars on topics of particular concern to its clients. These seminars are approved for continuing education credits for adjusters and some have been approved for continuing education credits for attorneys. They provide an excellent opportunity to discuss emerging areas of the law, including: If you have an interest in a firm seminar listed, please contact Donna Ernst at: 3 Practical Applications of New Law changes to WC Medical Benefits And WC Fraud 3 Special WC Issues for the Employer 3 Ethical Issues in WC Claims Handling 3 Handling the ALE Disaster 3 Proving and Defending Pre-Existing Damage 3 Premises Liability Primer 3 Liens/Subrogation/Reimbursement 3 Defending the Questionable Disc Injury Claim 3 Defending the TMD Claim 3 Comparative Negligence & Joint and Several Liability

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations.

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations. RESULTS Appellate Court upholds decision that malpractice action barred September 2, 2015 The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment obtained by David Overstreet and Mike McCall

More information

Michael C. Clarke and Betsy E. Gallagher of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Michael C. Clarke and Betsy E. Gallagher of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SARITHA REDDY PADURU and RAVI ANUGU, Appellants/Cross- Appellees, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-10913 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01066-MSS-TBM.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-10913 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01066-MSS-TBM. Case: 14-10913 Date Filed: 12/15/2014 Page: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10913 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01066-MSS-TBM GEICO GENERAL

More information

PUBLICATION PROVIDED BY: RISSMAN, BARRETT, HURT DONAHUE & McLAIN, P.A.

PUBLICATION PROVIDED BY: RISSMAN, BARRETT, HURT DONAHUE & McLAIN, P.A. PUBLICATION PROVIDED BY: RISSMAN, BARRETT, HURT DONAHUE & McLAIN, P.A. 201 EAST PINE STREET 15 TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 4940 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802-4940 TELEPHONE (407) 839-0120 TELECOPIER (407) 841-9726 ORLANDO@RISSMAN.COM

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2015 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, v No. 320710 Oakland Circuit Court YVONNE J. HARE,

More information

A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004

A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004 A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004 By: Mark Kane and HayDen Kane By reviewing this document the reader acknowledges that he or she has reviewed, understands

More information

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err

More information

Reed Armstrong Quarterly

Reed Armstrong Quarterly Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors

More information

https://advance.lexis.com/pages/contentviewprintablepage.aspx

https://advance.lexis.com/pages/contentviewprintablepage.aspx Page 1 of 5 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24928 Manfredi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24928 (Copy citation) United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit December 17, 2013,

More information

Supreme Court of Missouri en banc

Supreme Court of Missouri en banc Supreme Court of Missouri en banc MARK KARSCIG, Appellant, v. No. SC90080 JENNIFER M. MCCONVILLE, Appellant, and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PETTIS

More information

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 :

With regard to the coverage issue 1 : With regard to the stacking issue 2 : 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1140c Insurance -- Uninsured motorist -- Coverage -- Stacking -- Action against UM insurer by insured policyholder who was injured in single-car accident while riding as passenger in

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Acuity v. Decker, 2015 IL App (2d) 150192 Appellate Court Caption ACUITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD DECKER, Defendant- Appellee (Groot Industries, Inc., Defendant).

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana

More information

LETTERS OF PROTECTION IN GENERAL LIABIILTY CASES STRATEGIES FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL

LETTERS OF PROTECTION IN GENERAL LIABIILTY CASES STRATEGIES FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL LETTERS OF PROTECTION IN GENERAL LIABIILTY CASES STRATEGIES FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL Submitted by Joe Monello of Wicker, Smith, O Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A. and Judy S. Davis, Corporate Risk Manager, Tallahassee

More information

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION

VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added

More information

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Paul S. Bryan, Judge. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES HENDRICK, v Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2007 No. 275318 Montcalm Circuit Court LC No. 06-007975-NI

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-15213 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00238-GRJ.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-15213 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00238-GRJ. Case: 13-15213 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-15213 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00238-GRJ

More information

CASE NO. 1D12-2739. John W. Wesley of Wesley, McGrail & Wesley, Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellants.

CASE NO. 1D12-2739. John W. Wesley of Wesley, McGrail & Wesley, Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JARVIS A. HOLMES and MARSHA HOLMES, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE

More information

No. 64,825. [January 10, 1985] So.2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which the district court has

No. 64,825. [January 10, 1985] So.2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which the district court has .. No. 64,825 FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, v. JAMES L. COPE, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF ANNA L. COPE, deceased, Respondent. [January 10, 1985] McDONALD, J. We

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0308n.06 Filed: April 21, 2005. No. 04-5393

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0308n.06 Filed: April 21, 2005. No. 04-5393 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0308n.06 Filed: April 21, 2005 No. 04-5393 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO., Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALFREDO MEJIA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-2248 ) CITIZENS

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 10/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B238853 (Los Angeles County

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: OCTOBER 12, 2012; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2011-CA-001454-MR TAMRA HOSKINS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JEFFREY T.

More information

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON. July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY ) Shelby County Chancery Court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON. July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY ) Shelby County Chancery Court IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON FILED July 13, 1999 INTEGON INDEMNITY Shelby County Chancery Court CORPORATION, No. 108770-1 R.D. Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk Plaintiff/Appellant.

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION County Civil Court: INSURANCE Personal Injury Protection Policy language stating that any amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations including, but not limited to,

More information

2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC

More information

REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or. 1) Civil Justice Subcommittee 8 Y, 5 N, As CS Malcolm Bond

REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or. 1) Civil Justice Subcommittee 8 Y, 5 N, As CS Malcolm Bond HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: CS/HB 1199 Damages in Personal Injury Actions SPONSOR(S): Civil Justice Subcommittee; Metz and others TIED BILLS: None IDEN./SIM. BILLS: SB 1240 REFERENCE

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION LOUISE FOSTER Administrator of the : AUGUST TERM 2010 Estate of GEORGE FOSTER : and BARBARA DILL : vs.

More information

In the Indiana Supreme Court

In the Indiana Supreme Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Robert S. O Dell Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE W. F. Conour Jeffrey A. Hammond Timothy F. Devereux Indianapolis, Indiana In the Indiana Supreme Court No. 29S02-0908-CV-378

More information

No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER. Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER. Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY Ed. Note: Opinion Rendered April 11, 2000 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,

More information

CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE

CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION Melissa Healy INTRODUCTION In Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Arizona Supreme Court

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2002 WI App 237 Case No.: 02-0261 Complete Title of Case: KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, SR., DEBRA J. FOLKMAN AND KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, JR., Petition for Review filed.

More information

v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O

v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA ELOURDE COLIN, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: CVA1 09-16 Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-7009-O PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BRONSON HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC, d/b/a BRONSON METHODIST HOSPITAL, a Michigan nonprofit corporation, UNPUBLISHED July 16, 2015 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 321908 Kalamazoo

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.]

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] ROGERS v. CITY OF DAYTON ET AL., APPELLEES; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT. [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d

More information

RENDERED: DECEMBER 20, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 2001-CA-002498-MR OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** **

RENDERED: DECEMBER 20, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO. 2001-CA-002498-MR OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** RENDERED: DECEMBER 20, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-002498-MR ALICE STANIFORD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JOHNSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DANIEL

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-2659 CYNTHIA CLEFF NORMAN, Petitioner, vs. TERRI LAMARRIA FARROW, Respondent. [June 24, 2004] WELLS, J. We have for review Norman v. Farrow, 832 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA BARBRA R. JOYNER, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-000003-A-O Lower Case No.: 2010-CC-010676-O v. ONE THOUSAND OAKS, INC.,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered

More information

Library of Georgia Personal Injury Law Forms with CD-ROM (Print and Online)

Library of Georgia Personal Injury Law Forms with CD-ROM (Print and Online) Brochure More information from http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2126932/ Library of Georgia Personal Injury Law Forms with CD-ROM (Print and Online) Description: As much as victims need advocates,

More information

CASE NO. 1D09-0765. Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D09-0765. Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ATHENA F. GRAINGER, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF SAMUEL GUS FELOS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION

More information

Case 1:10-cv-02583-CCB Document 28 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 1:10-cv-02583-CCB Document 28 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Case 1:10-cv-02583-CCB Document 28 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CRYSTAL WILLIAMS * * v. * Case No. CCB-10-2583 * TRAVCO INSURANCE CO. * ******

More information

Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors

Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors By: Joseph B. Carini III & Catherine H. Reiter Cole, Grasso, Fencl & Skinner, Ltd. Illinois Courts have long

More information

Civil Suits: The Process

Civil Suits: The Process Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized

More information

HARRIS v AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Docket No. 144579. Argued March 6, 2013 (Calendar No. 7). Decided July 29, 2013.

HARRIS v AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Docket No. 144579. Argued March 6, 2013 (Calendar No. 7). Decided July 29, 2013. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Chief

More information

No. 1-11-1354 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-11-1354 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2012 IL App (1st 1111354-U SIXTH DIVISION April 20, 2012 No. 1-11-1354 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 08-0073 444444444444 PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. REGAN KELLEY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMES L. MARTIN, Plaintiff Below- Appellant, v. NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below- Appellee. No. 590, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE GERALD J. BAMBERGER, et al., ) No. ED92319 ) Appellants, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court vs. ) of St. Louis County ) 08SL-CC01435 CHARLES

More information

Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW

More information

S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter

S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter 295 Ga. 487 FINAL COPY S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter v. Progressive Mountain Ins.,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session STEPHANIE JONES and HOWARD JONES v. RENGA I. VASU, M.D., THE NEUROLOGY CLINIC, and METHODIST LEBONHEUR HOSPITAL Appeal from the

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000005-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-012076-O v. EMERGENCY

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia SECOND DIVISION JOHNSON, P.J., ELLINGTON and MIKELL, JJ. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE COURT. September 22, 2009 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A09A1222. WILLIAMS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-12181. D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01103-GAP-GJK. versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-12181. D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01103-GAP-GJK. versus Case: 12-12181 Date Filed: 08/06/2013 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-12181 D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01103-GAP-GJK STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 20, 2001 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 20, 2001 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 20, 2001 Session SUSAN WEISS, ET AL. v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 306126

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE

FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE INTRODUCTION Rebecca Floyd-Tunnell and Doris Floyd ( Appellants ) filed suit against Shelter Mutual Insurance

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KIRK A. HORN Mandel Pollack & Horn, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JOHN R. OBENCHAIN BRIAN M. KUBICKI Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEYS

More information

CASE NO. 1D09-1481. Bruce A. Gartner, of Bruce A. Gartner, P.A., Jacksonville Beach, for Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D09-1481. Bruce A. Gartner, of Bruce A. Gartner, P.A., Jacksonville Beach, for Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Opinion filed October 3, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-2476 Lower Tribunal No. 01-3314

More information

NO. 5-07-0468 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

NO. 5-07-0468 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 07/13/10. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the NO. 5-07-0468 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS disposition

More information

MASSACHUSETTS INSURANCE LAW UPDATE

MASSACHUSETTS INSURANCE LAW UPDATE THE MCCORMACK FIRM, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW MASSACHUSETTS INSURANCE LAW UPDATE Plaintiff Awarded in Excess of $1 Million For Insurer s Failure to Settle Automobile Liability Claim Within $20,000 Policy Limits

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY ELIZABETH RASKAUSKAS ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) C.A. No. CPU6-09-000991 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE ) DIRECT

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida LABARGA, J. No. SC09-240 JOHN RANDO, et al., Appellants, vs. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. [April 8, 2010] This case is before the Court for review of a question

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11921 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-22917-MGC.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11921 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-22917-MGC. Case: 14-11921 Date Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11921 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-22917-MGC UNITED

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION County Civil Court: INSURANCE Personal Injury Protection A sedan-type police vehicle, used primarily for business purposes, is considered a private passenger motor vehicle under Florida s PIP statute.

More information

U NDERSTANDING P ROPOSALS FOR S ETTLEMENT

U NDERSTANDING P ROPOSALS FOR S ETTLEMENT U NDERSTANDING P ROPOSALS FOR S ETTLEMENT BY ELLEN KOEHLER LYONS I. Use of Offers of Judgment and Proposals for Settlement To Resolve Litigation or To Shift Litigation Costs A. Using Offers of Judgment

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Certiorari Denied, June 25, 2014, No. 34,732 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2014-NMCA-077 Filing Date: April 30, 2014 Docket No. 32,779 SHERYL WILKESON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2000 Term No. 26558 ANTHONY IAFOLLA, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. THOMAS RAY TRENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN KEITH ROBINETTE,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT CRISTOBAL COLON, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.

More information

UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY

UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY 59202 Prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff for the Transportation Committee March 2004 UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY This memorandum reviews the law on uninsured

More information

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 92-7609. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee,

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 92-7609. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 92-7609. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. Luther ASHLEY, et al., Defendants, Luther Ashley, et al., Defendants-Appellees

More information

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION ATLANTIC STATES INSURANCE : February Term 2004 COMPANY, : Plaintiff, : No. 2642 v. : PATRICK

More information

2015 IL App (2d) 141168-U No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

2015 IL App (2d) 141168-U No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule

More information

2013 CASE LAW SUMMARY. Insurance Coverage. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Casar, 104 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA, 2013)

2013 CASE LAW SUMMARY. Insurance Coverage. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Casar, 104 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA, 2013) 2013 CASE LAW SUMMARY Insurance Coverage Appraisal Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Casar, 104 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA, 2013) The Third District reversed an order granting Casar s Motion to Compel Appraisal.

More information

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LUZ RIVERA AND ABRIANNA RIVERA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD MANZI Appellee No. 948 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al. : Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #82] After

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. HAN HUNG LUONG, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, FRANK T. GEORGE, and Defendant-Respondent,

More information

Personal Injury Litigation

Personal Injury Litigation Personal Injury Litigation The Anatomy of a New York Personal Injury Lawsuit An ebook by Stuart DiMartini, Esq. 1325 Sixth Avenue, 27 th Floor New York, NY 10019 212-5181532 dimartinilaw.com Introduction

More information

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) RATH V. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2010

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2010 GROSS, C.J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2010 AL LAMBERTI, as Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, Appellant, v. LAZARO MESA, Appellee. No. 4D09-1007 [March

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 12/09/2005 STATE FARM v. BROWN Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,

More information

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)

More information

CASE NO. 1D15-1966. The instant appeal originated with a medical malpractice complaint filed by

CASE NO. 1D15-1966. The instant appeal originated with a medical malpractice complaint filed by IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JAN COLVIN AND WADE COLVIN, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW

More information

CHAPTER 6 FLORIDA PATIENT BROKERING ACT

CHAPTER 6 FLORIDA PATIENT BROKERING ACT CHAPTER 6 FLORIDA PATIENT BROKERING ACT A. Summary of the Florida Patient Brokering Act The Patient Brokering Act is a criminal statute which specifically prohibits any health care provider or health care

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JANENE RUSSO and GARY RUSSO, v. Plaintiffs-Respondents, CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

[Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION

[Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION [Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83125 JOYCE L. FINKOVICH, Plaintiff-appellant vs. STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Clyde Kennedy, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1649 C.D. 2012 : Submitted: May 17, 2013 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Henry Modell & Co., Inc.), : Respondent

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 TANESHA CARTER, v. Appellant PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 684 EDA 2014 Appeal from

More information